Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Impact of Organizational Change On Organizational Culture PDF
Impact of Organizational Change On Organizational Culture PDF
on Organizational Culture:
Implications for Introducing
Evidence-Based Practice
Michael J. Austin, PhD
Jennette Claassen, MSW
INTRODUCTION
mum efficiency by tracking down the best evidence with which to an-
swer the question (which may come from the clinical exainination, the
diagnostic laboratory, the published literature or other sources), (d) crit-
ically appraising the evidence for its validity and applicability to clini-
cal practice, (e) applying the results of this evidence appraisal to
policy/practice, (f), evaluating performance, and (g) teaching others to
do the same (Sackett et al., 1997).
The modification of agency cultures may also be necessary to sup-
port and sustain evidence-based practice. The modification of an
agency's culture needs to include strategies that address the reality that
practitioners generally do. not have time to consult the research litera-
ture to guide practice decision-making due to an overwhelming volume
of information, lack knowledge about searching techniques, lack of
time, and lack access to information and libraries. In essence, what does
management need to do to build and sustain the supports for evi-
dence-based practice? What do supervisors need to do to assist line staff
in the process of adopting evidence-based practice? And what adjust-
ments do line staff members need to make to incorporate evi-
dence-based practice into their daily routines? (Johnson & Austin,
forthcoming).
In order to understanding the significance that organizational change
and organizational culture play in successfully implementing EBP, it is
important to review the research associated with these two concepts.
This analysis of organizational culture and organizational change draws
upon findings from both the private, for-profit sector, and the public,
non-profit field. It is divided into the following four sections: organiza-
tional change and innovation, organizational culture, managing organi-
zational culture and change, and finally, applying the findings to the
implementation of EBP. While the audience for this analysis are manag-
ers in public agencies who are considering implementing EBP into their
work environment, it is not intended to provide a "how to" guide, but
rather, a framework for critical thinking.
Consistent with the EBP principles of a systematic review, this struc-
tured review of the literature located references using pre-determined
search terms, database searches, and inclusion and exclusion criteria
noted in the Appendix. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were based
on three broad areas: (1) organizational change processes that facilitate
positive organizational change, (2) organizational culture and (3) the
management of organizational culture and change within the human
service field. Due to the limited amount of citations related to the human
services, additional sources are included related to the public and pri-
324 EVIDENCE FOR CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE
II. Types of change: two main types of ehange are admimstrative (proeess)
and technical (produet), where administrative changes refer to the
organizational structure and administrative processes (mainly occurring at the
management level and less at the basic work activities of the organization) and
technical changes are the changes in products, services, production, or process
technology and affect the work activities of the organization.
III. Degree of change; two major degrees, fundamental departure from existing
practices (radical reorientation, non-routine, ultimate, core, transfomiative,
and high risk) and minor adjustments to existing practices (routine,
instrumental, peripheral, incremental, and low risk)-See Figure 2
IV. Facilitators and inhibitors of change: since size alone may not inhibit or
facilitate change, successful adoption of ehange in an organization includes
the following characteristics: 1) simplicity of the change, 2) degree that it is
similar to previous practices, 3) advantage of change is clearly articulated and
understood (e.g., improved outcomes, increased fmancial gains), 4) rolled out
in stages or small steps, and 5) readily observable to those being asked to
implement the ehange.
VI. Staff readiness: The three factors related to staff readiness are: 1) what is
important for change to occur?, 2) what is necessaiy but not always sufficient
for change to occur?, and 3) what change is appropriate in the current
situation?.
Degree of Change
••-
Variation refers to refinements and Reorientation refers to a fundamental
modifieations, especially to a product change in existing product or .service
or service
Peripheral are flexible and involve less Core are the changes that are least flexible
institutional change (location, staff turnover) of all organizational features (goals,
authority, resource acquisition)
Low Risk includes those that have relatively High Risk includes the changes that
little loss of relative costs if the innovation is eannot be terminated or reversed, must be
Introduced or implemented implemented in entirety, and eonflict with
dominant values of the organization.
Evidence for Management Practice 329
essence, line workers tend to initiate small changes that enhance work
activity but do not introduce large changes in organizational structure.
A change in mission, a new service delivery system, or provision of ser-
vice to an unserved population would constitute radical change (Pearlmutter,
1998). Damanpour (1988) also stresses that workers higher in the organiza-
tional hierarchy initiate radical changes because radical change causes
deeper changes in roles, status, and behavior of members of an organiza-
tion. These substantial changes can create shifts in structure, roles, and
power as well as produce feelings of anxiety and fear among lower level
workers. Radical change is the most threatening, difficult to control, and in-
troduces the most unknown outcomes (Proehl, 2001). As a result, the intio-
duction of a radical change needs to anticipate and address the conflict in
roles, power, and status that accompany the change process.
Radical and minor changes are not necessarily mutually exclusive
because some changes fall in the middle of the continuum. Prior to the
introduction of a change, a manager needs to assess the degree of
change required by locating it on the continuum. This will shape the
strategy for introducing and iniplementing the change. Drawing on the
frameworks developed by Frey (1990) and King (1992), a manager can
assess the location of a future change on the continuum from the per-
spective of risk and novelty. Risk is the relative costs that might be in-
curred if a proposed change fails to meet its objectives or the potential
negative consequences of adopting the change. Risk can be assessed at
all levels within the organization in order to determine its potential im-
pact. The first aspect of risk is the amount of conflict the change may in-
troduce within the organization. A change that conflicts with the
dominant values of the organization or its members is considered a
high-risk innovation. The more the change promotes the perceived val-
ues ofthe majority ofthe organization, the closer it resembles the minor
change domain of the continuum. Secondly, changes need to be as-
sessed in terms of their implementation requirements. Changes imple-
mented in small stages or in one department may involve lower risk and,
therefore, represent a minor change. However, comprehensive changes
involving substantial shifts are considered high-risk. Thirdly, changes
that cannot be terminated without incurring substantial costs are consid-
ered high-risk, radical changes.
With the understanding of the types and degree of change, the next
step is to determine the factors that facilitate or inhibit the adoption of a
330 EVIDENCE EOR CHILD WELEARE PRACTICE
change; namely factors associated with the change itself and factors as-
sociated with organizational characteristics (Arad, Hanson, and Schnei-
der, 1997; Frambaeh & Schillewaert, 2002). While the organizational
change literature identifies the important role that organizational factors
have in facilitating or inhibiting the change process, there is consider-
able debate about the most influential factors. Arad, Hanson, and
Schneider (1997) note only a subset ofthe relevant factors are found in
most studies which makes it difficult to draw solid conclusions
regarding which factors are more influential in the change process.
While the importance of organizational characteristics continues to be
debated in the literature, the size ofthe organization is frequently cited as a
positive factor associated with successful change (Kaluzny, Veney, &
Gentry, 1974; Kimberly and Evanisco, 1981; Mohr, 1969). While some
claim that larger organizations experience a greater need to change and
have the resources to enter into different change processes, others perceive
smaller organizations as more flexible and able to support new changes.
These differing perceptions "may be largely attributable to the con-elation
of organization size with other variables, such as stincture, strategy, and
culture" (Frambaeh & Schillewaert, 2002, p. 165). Size alone may not in-
hibit or facilitate change and the negative relationship sometimes found be-
tween size and innovation might be explained by other organizational
variables (Arad, Hanson, & Schneider, 1997).
In addition, leadership is identified as a characteristic that can inhibit
or facilitate change depending on the qualities and attributes of each
leader. Some have argued that leadership is the most important factor
affecting change (King, 1992; Osborne, 1998; Shin & McClomb,
1998). Many of the qualities of leaders who encourage change are
viewed as transformational where charisma is used to stimulate an envi-
ronment of learning and risk as well as a supportive environment for
staff. While leadership is continually cited as a major facilitator of
change, Jaskyte and Dressier (2005) found that transformational leader-
ship was not necessarily coixelated with the organization's ability to
implement change.
In addition to leadership, there are important characteristics associ-
ated withof successful and sustainable change are also associated with
the change itself. Roger's seniinal work (1995) on diffusion of innova-
tion is linked to the sustainability of change and Rogers (1995) identi-
fied the following five major characteristics in the context of sustaining
and diffusing innovations:
Evidence for Management Practice 331
I. Motivation
• Program needs (need guidance with mission, goals, staff roles, etc.)
• Training needs (need more training in various skill sets)
• Pressure for change (coming from clients, staff, funding sources, etc.)
II. Resources
• Offices (space, equipment, etc.)
• Staffing (qualifications, turnover, sufficient skills, etc.)
• Training (priorities, conference travel support, etc.)
• Computer access (equipment, data systems, etc.)
• E-Communications (internet access, utilization, policy limitations, etc.)
•Davis, H., & Salasin, S, (1975), The utilization of evaluation. In E, Streunig, & M,
Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
models did not address. All three models addressed many of the baniers
and facilitators identified by organizational change researchers.
In reviewing the various models for assessing readiness for change, it
is clear that assessments need to include both individual and organiza-
tional perspectives as well as external and internal stakeholders. Indi-
vidual stakeholders include all levels of staff (i.e., management,
middle-management, and line staff) whose perceptions of organiza-
tional readiness should include most, if not all, of the following topics:
Organizational
Audit of
Domain Readiness for AVICTORY^
Readiness^
Change'
'Motivation for change '
Program need * *
Immediate trainitig needs * •
Pressures for change *
Incentives *
Resources ' , ,;, „ ^ " ' ' • ' • • • " • • • • " • • * ' ; • • • • ' • • • ^ . • • • • , • •riv V . " • '•• • • • '•' '••••
OtFice space
StafTmg *
Training *
Computer access
E-communication
Financial
Informational * *
Staff attributes
Professional growth
Efficacy * *
Influence *
Adaptability/Resistance *
* *
Organisational Climate
Mission
Cohesion *
Autonomy
Communication *
Stress * *
Change *
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Scholars and practitioners in the public and private sector have long
recognized the role and importance of culture on organizational perfor-
niance (Khademian, 2002). However, only in the past few decades has
the organizational change literature begun to explore the relationship
between organizational culture and organizational change. While the
empirical research is limited, the research agenda includes organiza-
tional values, expectations and assumptions that exist within an organi-
zation (Jaskyte & Dressier, 2005; Hodges & Hernandez, 1999). The
older models of change and innovation, which focus heavily on struc-
tural and environmental explanations for innovation or change, provide
an incomplete picture of the forces and energy driving the organization.
Public programs are also beginning to recognize the importance of ac-
knowledging and understanding culture as a key element in the effec-
tive management of change. Khademian (2002) reports that under-
standing organizational culture "is an essential ingredient for under-
standing why government programs perform the way they do" (p. 5).
There is a growing need to focus on culture as an important ingredient in
the management of change.
While progress has been made in defining organizational culture,
managers need practical tools for understanding how to enhance or
modify organizational cultures. For example, Smireich (1983) notes
that organizational cultures can be viewed as a set of factors brought
into an organization (by senior and middle management) or as factors
that the organization produces in the form of an "adaptive or regulatory
mechanism" that brings staff together into a social structure. In the case
of an adaptive mechanism, organizational culture can be unconsciously
generated, interactional, and implicit whereby the culture is a negoti-.
ated process rather than the result of authoritative dictates from above
(Hodges, 1997). Whether organizational culture is viewed from the top
or the bottom of the organization, changes in the organization can lead
to a change in the organizational culture that can make it more or less
supportive of organizational outcomes.
340 EVIDENCE FOR CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE
Artifacts: Symbolic
|ii esentation.s of values and
îiJicf and basic assumptions
Basic Assumptions:
Fundamental notions of
how the organization
and its members relate
to the environment,
time, space, reality, and
each other
ties, and taking risks. According to Martin (1992) the discrepancy in the
two theories can be explained by the role that strong organizational cul-
tures can play in alleviating anxiety, helping control the uncontrollable,
bringing predictability, and clarifying ambiguity. These characteristics,
at the same time, can control any kind of behavior that might disrupt
organization harmony and predictability and thereby block the intro-
duction and maintenance of change.
rity that the organizational culture offers. However, the formal culture
may not promote critical thinking and can be resistant to change. As
organizations anticipate periods of change, it is important for managers
to flnd ways to modify the organizational culture to one that promotes
more comfort with the instability associated with the change process.
the three roots of organizational culture are tasks, resources, and envi-
ronment, and (2) public managers influence and help shape culture by
managing the process of integrating the three roots in order to create a
"common understanding (or commitment) held by people working to-
gether in an organization or program" (p. 3). The work of the organiza-
tion depends on a mix of tasks (services) and resources (financial and
human) that exist in a complex and changing environment. Within the
expectations, constraints, and legacies of a complex internal and exter-
nal environment, Khademian (2002) identified six strategies for
understanding and managing the culture of public organizations (see
Figure 7).
Strategy 1 and 2 involves a manager stepping back from daily activi-
ties in order to "soak and poke" around the organization in order to iden-
tify the connections between existing commitments and the roots (tasks,
resources, and environment). To guide the process of identifying pro-
gram commitments (Khademian, 2002), several questions are posed for
managers to ask themselves:.
volves basic assumptions, values and belief, and the artifacts operating
within the organization. Understanding the types of cultures that exist
and the ways each culture promotes or resists change can help adminis-
trators to more effectively manage their organizations. Khademian pre-
sented a framework to assist managers by connecting the organizational
commitments (culture) to the roots (environment, resources, tasks).
Given this analysis of the research on organizational culture, the follow-
ing questions can assist managers in applying the concepts of organiza-
tional culture to a human service organization:
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation. Sociology,
5(1), 63-82.
Evidence for Management Practice 353
Arad, S., Hanson, M., & Schneider, R. J. ( 1,997). A framework for the study of relation-
ships between organizational characteristics and organizational innovation. Journal
of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 42-58.
Atherton, C. (2002). Changing culture not stmcture: Five years of research in practice
in child care. MCC: Building Knowledge for Integrated Care, 10(1), 17-21.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-eftlcacy mechanism in human agency. American Psycholo-
gist. 37(2), 122-147.
Bartunek, J.M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructur-
ing: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29,
355-372:
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, C. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance
and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545.
Cahn, K. D. C. (2004). Cetting there from here: Variables associated wilh the adoption
of innovation in public child welfare. Dissertation Abstracts International. A: The
Humanities and Social Sciences. 65 (3), 1114-A-l 115-A. (Available from UMl,
Ann Arbor, MI. Order No. DA3127385.)
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. ( 1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational cul-
ture. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Center lor Evidetice-based Social Services. (2004). Becomhig an evidence-based orga-
nization: Applying, adapting, and acting on evidence-module 4. The Evidence
Cuide: Using Research and Evaluation in Social Care and Allied Professions.
Exeter, UK: University of Exeter, www.ex.ac.uk/cebss
Chandler, C. Keller, C. & Lyons, D. (2000). Unraveling the determinants and conse-
quences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture. Entreprenemship The-
ory and Practice, 25( 1 ), 59-76.
Daft, R. L. ( 1982). Bureaucratic versus nonbureaucratic structure and the process of in-
novation and change. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. I. 129-166
Damanpour, F. ( 1988). Innovation type, radicalness, and the adoption process. Com-
munication Research. Special Issue on Innovative Research on Innovations and Or-
ganizations. J5{5), 545-567.
Datnanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance:
The probletii of "organizational lag." Administrative Science Quarterly. 29(3),
392-402. ' •
Davies, H. & Nutley, S. (2002). Evidence-based policy and practice: Moving from
rhetoric to reality. Discussion Paper 2. Scotland: St Andrews University, Research
Unit for Research Utilization. www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~njnj/RURU%20 publica-
tions%201ist.htm
Davis, H., & Salasin, S. (1975). The utilization of evaluation. In E. Sireunig, & M.
Cuttentag (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Davis, D. A., Thomson, M. A., Oxman, A. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1995). Changing phy-
sician performance: A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical educa-
tion strategies. Journal of the American Medical Association. 274(9), 700-705.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Diamond, M. A. (1995). Organizational change as human process, not technique. Na-
tional Institute of Drug Abuse Research Monograph. 155, 119-131..
354 EVIDENCE EOR CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE
Kayser, K., Walker, D., & Demaio, J. (2000). Understanding social workers' sense of
competence within the context of organizational change. Administration in Social
Work. 24(4). \-20.
Khademian, A. K. (2002). Working with culture: How the job gets done in public pro-
grams. Washington. DC: CQ Press.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of
individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of techno-
logical and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4),
689-713.
King, N. (1992). Modelling the innovation proeess: An empirical comparison of ap-
proaches. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 89-100.
Kitson, A., Harvey, C , & McCormack, B. (1998). Enabling the implementation of evi-
dence-based practice: A conceptual framework. Quality in Health Ca/e, 7,
149-158.
Knight, K. E. ( 1967). A descriptive model of the intra-firm innovation process. Journal
of Business. 40, 478-496.
KUbler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York, NY: Collier Books/
Macmillan Publishing Co.
Lawler, J., & Bilson, A. (2004). Towards a more reflexive research aware practice: The
influence and potential of professional and team culture. Social Work & Social Sci-
ences Review. 11{\), 52-69.
Lehman, W. E. K., Creener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing organizational
readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 22(4), 197-209.
Locock, L., Dopson, S., Chambers, D., & Gabbay, J. (2001). Understanding the role of
opitiion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Social Science and Medicine.
53(6), 745-757.
Martin, J. (1992). Culture in organizations: Three perspectives. New York, NY: Ox-
ford University Press.
McLean, L. D. (2005). Organizational culture's influence on creativity and innovation:
A review of the literature and implications for hutnan resource development. Ad-
vances in Developing Human Resources. 7(2), 226-246.
Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political
Science Review. (53( I ), 111 -126.
Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Manage-
ment Review, 40(1), 59.
Nicholls, D., & McDermott, B. (2002). Collaboration to innovation: Facilitating the in-
troduction of intensive child and adolescent psychiatry treattnent teams.
Australasian Psychiatry, 10(2), 139-143.
Nord, W. R., & Tucker, S. (1987). Implemeting routine and radical innovations.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Normann, R. (1971). Organizational innovativeness: Product variation and reorienta-
tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 203-215.
O'Brien, M. A., Oxman, A. D., Haynes, R. B., Davis, D. A., Freemantle, N. & Harvey,
E. L. (1999). Local opinion leaders: Effects on professional practice and
healthcare outcomes. Retrieved June 2005 from: htlp://www.mrw.interscietice.
wiley.com/cochratie/clsysrev/articles/CDOOOI25/frame.html
356 EVIDENCE FOR CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE
Osbome, S. P. (1998). Naming the beast: Defining and classifying service innovations
in social policy. Human Relations, 57(9), 1133-1154.
Pearlmutter, S. (1998). Self-efficacy and organizational change leadei-ship. Adminis-
tration in Social Work. 22(3), 23-38.
Peryaiz, K. A. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of Inno-
vation Management, / / , 30-47.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, J. R. H. ( 1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from amer-
ica's best-run companies. New York, NY: Warner Books.
Poole, D. L., Ferguson, M., & Schwab, A. J. (2005). Managing process innovations in
welfare reform technology. Administration in Social Work, 29(1), 101-106.
Proehl, R.A. (2001). Organizational Change in the Human Services. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications
Robbins, V., Collins, K., Liaupsin, C , Illback, R. J., & Call, J. (2003). Evaluating
. school readiness to implement positive behavioral supports. Journal of Applied
School Psychology, 20(]), 41-66.
Robert.son, P. J., & Seneviratne, S. J. (1995). Outcomes of planned organizational
change in the public sector: A meta-analytic comparison to the private sector. Pub-
lic Administration Review, 55(6), 547.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. 4th Ed. New York: Free Press.
Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B.
( 1997). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed. ). Edin-
burgh: Churchill-Livingstone.
Schein, E. H. ( 1992). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. 2ncl Ed.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shin, J., & McClonib, G. E. (1998). Top executive leadership and organizational inno-
vation: An empirieal investigation of nonprofit human service organizations
(HSOs). Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 1 -21.
Singh, J. V., House, R. J., & Tucker, D. J. (1986). Organizational change and organiza-
tional mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 587-611.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.
Subramaniam, N. & Ashkanasy, N. (2001). The effects of organizational culture per-
ceptions on the relationship between budgetary participation and managerial job-re-
lated outcomes. Australian Journal of Management, 26(1), 35-54.
Tozer, C. & Bournemouth, S. ( 1999). 20 questions: The research needs of children and
family social workers, 17(1) from http://www.elsc.org.uk/socialcareresource/
rpp/articles/1711999art3.htni
Zeil, D. (2003). Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39( 1 ), 73-96.
doi:10.1300/J394v05n01 12
Evidence for Management Practice . 357
Search Terms
organi?ational innovation
innovation process
organi?ational creativity
APPENDIX (continued)
Databases
Systematic Reviews
Cochrane Collaboration
Campbell Collaboration
Research Institutes
Mathmatica
Urban Institute
RAND /
GAO
National Academy of Sciences
Chapin Hall
CASRC (San Diego)
Brookings Institute
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Conference proceedings
Dissertation Abstracts
Google
Dogpile